next »

[Paul Eres]

no i think your statements do a good enough job of that themselves even without us saying anything

[PompiPompi]

Well, yea, my previous statements just had really bad phrasing, they were probably incomprehensible.
Though, I refined them with a more readable version.
I didn't mean to offend you Paul, I was more talking about the others. But meh...
Anyway, don't you see the logic behind my statement?
You said "Child's play" is not saving lives, and thus it's a waste of money to donate to them and you should donate to a better charity instead.
However, how can you complain that "Child's play" not saving lives, when you yourself are making games instead of volunteering to save lives?
And it's not that "Child's play" is not doing charity, it's just not doing enough according to you. Well you are not doing enough to save people as well.
Now, I am not saying this is an excuse to stop saving peoples' lives, but your argument of being against anything that support "Child's play" is just a fallacy.

[Christian Knudsen]

You can't criticize games if you haven't made one yourself.
You can't criticize the government if you're not a politician.
You can't criticize a charity if you haven't saved lives.

See how stupid that argument is?

[PompiPompi]

Yea, but he is not criticizing the charity itself, he claims that donating games to children is not a worthy cause.

[Christian Knudsen]

He's saying there are more worthy causes. Stop fighting imaginary arguments.

[PompiPompi]

Exactly, he is saying there are more worthy causes, and that is his argument to not support "Child's play".
This is where I disagree. Just like some people would prefer to donate to shelters for dogs over cure for cancer, some people prefer to donate to "Child's play". It's not less worthy, it's a matter of personal preference.

[Paul Eres]

Anyway, don't you see the logic behind my statement?
You said "Child's play" is not saving lives, and thus it's a waste of money to donate to them and you should donate to a better charity instead.

i don't think you actually read what i said, because i never said it's a waste of money to donate to child's play. i just said there are charities that i think do more good for the money (a better bang for your buck). but money donated to child's play is not "wasted" at all, it goes to subsidize the videogame industry, which marginally helps the economy, and it gives some hospitals some games that they would not otherwise have, which makes some people happier in hospitals and may even save a few lives, because people have faster recovery rates when they are happier. but despite all that, i'd still rather donate to kiva or to building wells in poor african villages, because i feel it's more effective to do so

also, how do you know i'm not volunteering to save lives? i've done some volunteer work. just because i make games doesn't mean i can't do anything else

[Christian Knudsen]

It's not less worthy, it's a matter of personal preference.

And that personal preference is only valid if shared by you?

[PompiPompi]

Well, as I said, it's a matter of personal preferences. "Child's play" is best at what it is doing, so comparing it to other charities does not make sense.
A dogs shelter charity is better at saving dogs than cure for cancer charity, but cure for cancer charity is better at saving humans than the dogs shelter charity. Than which one is more efficient? worthy? productive?

[PompiPompi]

It's not less worthy, it's a matter of personal preference.

And that personal preference is only valid if shared by you?

Any personal preference is valid, but Paul claims some charities are better than others at being a charity. Because they are doing more, more efficient, more productive, etc. Which is not true.

[Paul Eres]

you keep saying i'm saying things i didn't say. i even *said* it was a personal preference earlier on

[PompiPompi]

Oh, sorry, heh...

[Christian Knudsen]

A charity that saves lives is worth more than a charity that lets kids play games. Saving lives is more important than giving hospitalized kids access to video games. This "everything is equal" point of view is flabbergasting. Saying that one is worth more than the other is not the same as saying the other shouldn't exist. And, yes, I personally would prefer that the people donating to dog shelters would instead give to cancer research. Given the choice between a dog sleeping in the rain and a kid dying from cancer, I'd prefer that the kid is saved. But people are still allowed to donate to whatever they want to -- and I and everybody else is allowed to have an opinion on that.

[PompiPompi]

Well some people love animals more than they love humans. Are you now saying humans are worth more than animals? You could have that opinion, but you can't state that as a fact. It's just your opinion, and other people will have a different opinion and given a choice to save a dog or a human they would choose to save the dog's life.
It might look to you like they are evil or crazy or something, but you might look evil or crazy to them just as well.

[Christian Knudsen]

Are you now saying humans are worth more than animals?

Yes.

It's just your opinion, and other people will have a different opinion and given a choice to save a dog or a human they would choose to save the dog's life.

And that would be an insane and wrong choice. Just like that opinion would be wrong. Not all opinions are equally valid.